Assistance to victims of discrimination by equality bodies of the EU member states : a Scandinavian perspective : legal issues arising from combining the function of providing assistance to victims of discrimination with the function of hearing and investigating complaints / Bjørn Dilou Jacobsen.
2010
KJC5142 .J33 2010 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Assistance to victims of discrimination by equality bodies of the EU member states : a Scandinavian perspective : legal issues arising from combining the function of providing assistance to victims of discrimination with the function of hearing and investigating complaints / Bjørn Dilou Jacobsen.
Published
Copenhagen : DJØF, 2010.
Call Number
KJC5142 .J33 2010
Edition
First edition.
ISBN
9788757421569 (pbk.)
8757421560 (pbk.)
8757421560 (pbk.)
Description
372 pages ; 23 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)656350535
Dissertation Note
Based on a dissertation (doctoral)-University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen 2009.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 341-356).
Record Appears in
Table of Contents
Preface
5
1.
Introduction
19
1.1.
Subject Matter and Objective
19
1.2.
Structure
23
2.
Method and Scope
25
2.1.
Introduction
25
2.2.
The Comparative Approach
26
2.2.1.
Rationale for applying a comparative approach
26
2.2.2.
The selection of models to be compared
27
2.2.3.
The general applicability of results based on the Scandinavian equality body models
29
2.3.
Sources of Law
30
2.3.1.
Scandinavian law
31
2.3.2.
EU law
32
2.3.3.
The European Convention on Human Rights
35
2.3.4.
Recommendations from international monitoring organs
36
2.3.5.
Information from European anti-discrimination networks
37
2.4.
Further Demarcation
39
2.4.1.
Equality bodies for the promotion of equal treatment as required under EU law
39
2.4.2.
Legal issues arising from combining the function of providing assistance to victims of discrimination with the function of hearing and investigating complaints
41
2.4.3.
Non-discriminatory grounds and scope covered
43
3.
The Scandinavian Equality Bodies
45
3.1.
Introduction
45
3.2.
The Danish Equality Bodies
45
3.2.1.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights
47
3.2.1.1.
Structure
48
3.2.1.2.
Regulation
48
3.2.1.3.
Provision of assistance to victims of discrimination
48
3.2.1.4.
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
50
3.2.2.
The Equal Treatment Board
50
3.2.2.1.
Structure
50
3.2.2.2.
Regulation
51
3.2.2.3.
Functions and powers regarding complaints handling
51
3.2.2.4.
Complaints handling procedure
52
3.2.2.5.
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
53
3.2.3.
The former Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment (established within the Danish Institute for Human Rights)
53
3.2.3.1.
Structure
53
3.2.3.2.
Regulation
54
3.2.3.3.
Functions and powers regarding complaints handling
55
3.2.3.4.
Complaints handling procedure
56
3.2.3.5.
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
57
3.3.
The Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud and the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
58
3.3.1.
Structure
59
3.3.2.
Regulation
59
3.3.3.
Functions and powers
60
3.3.4.
Complaints handling procedure
61
3.3.5.
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
63
3.4.
The Swedish Equality Ombudsman
63
3.4.1.
Structure
64
3.4.2.
Regulation
65
3.4.3.
Functions and powers
65
3.4.4.
Complaints handling procedure
66
3.4.5.
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
68
4.
Provision of Assistance and Impartial Complaints Handling
71
4.1.
Introduction
71
4.2.
The Issue of Both Providing Assistance and Hearing and Investigating Complaints as Manifested in the Scandinavian Equality Bodies
72
4.2.1.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights, the former Complaints Committee and the Equal Treatment Board
73
4.2.2.
The Norwegian Ombud
76
4.2.3.
The Swedish Equality Ombudsman
77
4.3.
The EU Law Requirement to Provide Assistance to Victims of Discrimination
77
4.3.1.
The nature of the assistance to be provided
78
4.3.1.1.
Literal interpretation
78
4.3.1.2.
International recommendations as constituting the norm
79
4.3.1.3.
Interpretation based on preparatory works
81
4.3.1.3.1.
The intention behind the vague wording of the EU requirement to provide assistance
81
4.3.1.3.2.
The interaction between the EU requirement to represent victims of discrimination in legal proceedings and to provide assistance
85
4.3.1.4.
Purposive interpretation
87
4.3.1.5.
The reasoned opinion of the EU Commission regarding the Danish model
88
4.3.1.6.
In sum
89
4.3.2.
A requirement to pursue every complaint?
90
4.3.2.1.
The ability to operate with a threshold for handling complaints
90
4.3.2.2.
Does strategic litigation suffice as provision of assistance?
90
4.3.3.
Other factors affecting the EU requirement to provide assistance
96
4.3.3.1.
Minimum requirements
96
4.3.3.2.
The principles of effectiveness and equivalence
98
4.3.3.2.1.
The principle of effectiveness
98
4.3.3.2.2.
The principle of equivalence
99
4.4.
Impartiality Requirements and the Appearance of Bias
102
4.4.1.
Challenges to the impartiality of equality bodies with competence to hear and investigate complaints
102
4.4.2.
Impartiality requirements and organizational choices of the Scandinavian equality bodies
106
4.4.2.1.
The applicability of administrative law procedural rules to the case handling of the Scandinavian equality bodies
106
4.4.2.1.1.
The former Danish Complaints Committee
107
4.4.2.1.2.
The Norwegian Ombud
107
4.4.2.1.3.
The Swedish Equality Ombudsman
108
4.4.2.2.
Scandinavian administrative law procedural rules proscribing bias
109
4.4.2.3.
The organisation of the Scandinavian equality bodies in regard to the issue of functional bias
111
4.4.2.3.1.
The Danish Institute for Human Rights, the former Complaints Committee and the Equal Treatment Board
111
4.4.2.3.2.
The Norwegian Ombud and the Tribunal
112
4.4.2.3.3.
The Swedish Equality Ombudsman
113
4.4.2.3.4.
In sum
114
4.4.3.
The experiences of the Australian HREOC in regard to the appearance of impartiality
114
4.5.
The Ability of the Scandinavian Equality Bodies to Provide Assistance in Light of Impartiality Requirements
116
4.5.1.
Hearing and investigating complaints
116
4.5.2.
Providing guidance
117
4.5.2.1.
The Scandinavian administrative law obligation to provide guidance
118
4.5.2.2.
Experiences from the Australian HREOC
120
4.5.2.3.
The extent to which the Scandinavian equality bodies may provide guidance
121
4.5.3.
Seeking settlements
122
4.5.3.1.
The line between seeking a settlement and predetermining the case or putting undue pressure on the respondent
124
4.5.3.2.
Mediation and the duty to provide the parties with an adversarial process
127
4.5.4.
Assisting complainants in pursuing their complaints in court
129
4.5.5.
Strengthening the protection against discrimination by interpreting the law dynamically
132
4.6.
Concluding Remarks
137
5.
Investigation of Complaints
141
5.1.
Introduction
141
5.2.
Investigatory Powers of Equality Bodies
142
5.2.1.
International recommendations and Member State practices
142
5.2.2.
The investigatory powers of the Scandinavian equality bodies
144
5.2.2.1.
The inquisitorial procedure
144
5.2.2.2.
The power to compel the parties to provide information
144
5.2.2.3.
The ability to draw adverse inferences
145
5.2.2.3.1.
Express power to draw adverse inferences
145
5.2.2.3.2.
The ability to draw adverse inferences
146
5.2.2.4.
Written or oral case handling
149
5.2.2.4.1.
The general approach under Scandinavian administrative law
149
5.2.2.4.2.
Where the equality body mainly relies on written material
149
5.2.2.4.3.
Where the equality body obtains oral statements
150
5.2.2.4.4.
Where the equality body carries out oral hearings
152
5.2.2.5.
The effect of obtaining oral testimonies in word-against-word situations
152
5.2.2.5.1.
The inability to obtain oral testimonies
152
5.2.2.5.2.
The ability to obtain oral testimonies in court
156
5.2.2.6.
Other possible approaches to word-against-word situations
158
5.2.2.6.1.
Assisting complaints with taking their cases to court
158
5.2.2.6.2.
Assessing the probability of the conflicting statements in light of the information at hand
159
5.2.3.
Concluding remarks
163
5.3.
Requesting Information in Light of the Principle against Self-Incrimination
166
5.3.1.
The principle against self-incrimination under Article 6(1) of the ECHR
167
5.3.2.
Scandinavian rules on the principle against self-incrimination
173
5.3.2.1.
The Danish due process act for public authorities
173
5.3.2.2.
Norway and Sweden
177
5.3.3.
The impact of the principle against self-incrimination on the Scandinavian equality bodies
177
5.3.3.1.
Where the equality body can compel the respondent to provide information under penalty of law
177
5.3.3.2.
Where the respondent has no duty to provide information under penalty of law
179
5.3.4.
Concluding remarks
180
5.4.
Situation Testing
181
5.4.1.
Definition and methodology
184
5.4.2.
The use of situation testing as evidence in legal proceedings in the Member States
185
5.4.3.
Issues regarding the use of situation testing as evidence in legal proceedings
188
5.4.3.1.
Incitement
189
5.4.3.1.1.
Is situation testing incitement?
189
5.4.3.1.2.
The use of situation testing in criminal proceedings in light of Article 6(1) of the ECHR
191
5.4.3.2.
Does discrimination against the test person constitute an unlawful act?
192
5.4.3.3.
Can a situation test be used to establish a past incident of discrimination?
194
5.4.3.4.
Is there a need for an actual victim?
195
5.4.4.
The ability of the Scandinavian equality bodies to carry out situation testing
197
5.4.4.1.
Do the equality bodies have competence to carry out situation testing under their general mandate?
198
5.4.4.1.1.
The principle of legality
198
5.4.4.1.2.
Does situation testing require an express statutory authorisation?
201
5.4.4.2.
Can situation testing be used as a means to investigate complaints under the inquisitorial procedure?
204
5.4.4.3.
Can situation testing be used as a means to investigate cases taken up on the equality body's own initiative?
205
5.4.5.
Concluding remarks
207
6.
Use of the EU Rules on Burden of Proof
209
6.1.
Introduction
209
6.2.
Evidence Terminology
211
6.2.1.
Facts in issue and evidentiary facts
213
6.2.2.
Burden of proof
213
6.2.2.1.
The legal burden
214
6.2.2.2.
The burden of producing evidence
215
6.2.2.3.
The specific meaning of the burden of producing evidence in common law legal systems
216
6.2.3.
The standard of proof
217
6.2.4.
Prima facie case
218
6.2.5.
Rebuttable presumption of law
219
6.3.
The EU Rules on Burden of Proof
220
6.3.1.
Background
220
6.3.2.
Mode of operation
223
6.3.2.1.
Establishing a prima facie case
223
6.3.2.1.1.
How to establish a prima facie case
223
6.3.2.1.2.
The effect of establishing a prima facie case
227
6.3.2.2.
The respondent's burden of proof
228
6.3.2.2.1.
The nature of the respondent's burden of proof
228
6.3.2.2.2.
The British exemption
230
6.3.2.2.3.
The effect on the allocation of the respondent's burden of proof
231
6.3.2.3.
Requirements for the standard of proof
234
6.3.2.3.1.
Standard of proof applied to the complainant
235
6.3.2.3.2.
Standard of proof applied to the respondent
237
6.3.2.4.
A two stage process?
239
6.3.2.5.
A "shared" burden of proof?
240
6.3.3.
The practical effect of the EU rules on burden of proof
241
6.3.3.1.
Cases about direct discrimination
242
6.3.3.2.
Cases about indirect discrimination
246
6.3.3.3.
The preventive effect (a normative assessment)
248
6.3.4.
Who shall apply the EU rules on burden of proof?
250
6.3.4.1.
"Court or other competent authority"
250
6.3.4.2.
Exceptions
250
6.4.
Inqusitorial Administrative Proceedings and Rules on Burden of Proof under Scandinavian Law
252
6.4.1.
The inquisitorial procedure and use of rules on burden of proof
253
6.4.1.1.
The responsibility of the administrative body to investigate the case, the legal burden and the standard of proof
254
6.4.1.2.
The duty of the party to provide information and the burden of producing evidence
257
6.4.2.
Administrative law rules on burden of proof
260
6.4.2.1.
Statutory regulation
260
6.4.2.2.
General principles
261
6.4.2.2.1.
The legal burden
261
6.4.2.2.2.
The standard of proof
262
6.4.2.2.3.
The burden to produce evidence
263
6.5.
The Impact of the Scandinavian Equality Bodies' Use or Non-Use of the EU Rules on Burden of Proof
264
6.5.1.
The effect of the EU rules on burden of proof in administrative inquisitorial proceedings
265
6.5.2.
The Scandinavian equality bodies use or non-use of the EU rules on burden of proof
267
6.5.2.1.
The Danish Equal Treatment Board
267
6.5.2.2.
The former Danish Complaints Committee
268
6.5.3.3.
The Norwegian Ombud and Tribunal
272
6.5.3.4.
The Swedish DO
273
6.6.
Concluding Remarks
274
7.
Participation in Court Proceedings
277
7.1.
Introduction
277
7.2.
Can a Right for Equality Bodies to Participate in Court Proceedings Be Derived from EU Law?
278
7.3.
Means of Assisting Victims of Discriminaiton in Court Proceedings
280
7.3.1.
Assisting individual complainants in bringing legal proceedings
280
7.3.2.
Class actions
283
7.3.3.
Bringing legal proceedings in the equality bodies' name
284
7.3.4.
Interventions
286
7.3.4.1.
Terminology
287
7.3.4.2.
Equality bodies' use of interventions
289
7.4.
Do the Different Roles of an Equality Body Have an Impact on Its Ability to Participate in Court Proceedings? (Impartiality Revisited)
293
7.4.1.
Assisting the court as expert body in cases that the equality body itself has not handled (partisan expert submissions and the right to adversarial proceedings)
294
7.4.2.
Assisting the court as specialised body in cases the equality body itself has handled
296
7.5.
The Ability of the Scandinavian Equality Bodies to Assist Victims of Discriminiton in Court
297
7.5.1.
The Danish Equal Treatment Board and the Institute for Human Rights
297
7.5.1.1.
The ability of the Institute for Human Rights to participate in court proceedings
299
7.5.1.1.1.
The general human rights mandate of the Institute for human rights
299
7.5.1.1.2.
The mandate of the Institute for Human Rights to assist victims of racial discrimination
302
7.5.1.2.
Can the Institute for Human Rights meet the procedural requirements for participating in legal proceedings
304
7.5.1.2.1.
Representing individual complainants in court
304
7.5.1.2.2.
Assistance with applying for free legal aid in court
306
7.5.1.2.3.
Class actions
307
7.5.1.2.4.
Intervening in support of complainants
308
7.5.1.2.5.
Submitting briefs as a non-party specialized in anti-discrimination law issues
311
7.5.1.3.
Out-of-court comments
311
7.5.2.
The Norwegian Ombud
315
7.5.2.1.
Assisting individual complainants in bringing legal proceedings
315
7.5.2.2.
Class actions
317
7.5.2.3.
Intervening in support of complainants
318
7.5.2.4.
Public interest submissions
321
7.5.3.
The Swedish Equality Ombudsman
323
7.5.3.1.
Assisting individual complainants in bringing legal proceedings
323
7.5.3.2.
Class actions
324
7.5.3.3.
Interventions
324
7.6.
Concluding Remarks
327
7.6.1.
The importance of an equality body being able to enforce its findings in court
327
7.6.2.
The ability to participate in court proceedings as a means to develop the law
328
7.6.3.
The problem of setting up a two-tier system
328
7.6.4.
The ability to file class action suits
329
8.
Conclusions
330
8.1.
Introduction
330
8.2.
Provision of Assistance and Impartial Complaints Handling
330
8.3.
Investigation of Complaints
333
8.4.
The Use of the EU Rules on Burden or Proof
335
8.5.
Participation in Court Proceedings
338
8.6.
In Sum
339
9.
Bibliography
341
Literature
347
Annex A
Table of Scandinavian legislation
357
Danish legislation
357
Norwegian legislation
359
Swedish legislation
359
Annex B
Table of the Scandinavian Equality Bodies
361
Annex C
The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission
363
Structure
363
Regulation
364
Functions and powers regarding complaints handling
365
Complaints handling procedure
368
Additional functions regarding law enforcement and promotion of equal treatment
371